One would benefit from looking at how many Combat Fighters Boeing has delivered in the last 20 years and compare that number to their competitors in Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Boeing inherited McD's assets, and the Hornet Design from Grumman. It would be also interesting to dig up the last fighter Boeing has actually designed in house that actually won a contract (hint go back quite a few decades..).KrishnaK wrote:How is such a subversion possible for any stretch of time by just one company ? This seems to be a persistent theme on this forum. Other vendors have money as well, recourse to law and there's anti-trust law that limits how far any one company can corner the field.UlanBatori wrote:The question/concern I have (one of many) is what happens if by massive political influence/lobbying, one company forces the guvrmand/nation to spend essentially its entire Air force combat aircraft budget on **ONE** vehicle design, however cross-service/multi-purpose/versatile/reconfigurable that is.
Lockheed couldn't win a fighter competition for some time, and they inherited the F-16 from General Dynamics Fort Worth. Their dominance in the ATF was because they were one of the two most experienced design houses when it came to prototyping and low-observable designs having benefited from (competitive contracts) the F117 and other LO crafts they had designed. They also had unique experiences in high cruise speed flight. The two down-select teams for the ATF both dominated stealth in the 70's and 80's and were naturally positioned to benefit from that work. Boeing competed independently and was not even in the top three for the ATF.
The acquisition authority is to pick the best aircraft under the requirements. There is no room for industrial base concern, since that is addressed elsewhere. Like I said, Boeing has delivered more fighters than any of the three design houses int he US over the last 20 or so years. Their F-18/E/F, EA-18G, and F-15E lines have won a ton of work (on dollar amount they would probably be the largest over this period in the world). On the ATF they built quite a lot as well. They went all out on the JSF and Lockheed chose to partner with Northrop, a supplier that had proven its worth when it came to delivering structures on time and at a lower cost on the Super Hornet program (where it was the lead supplier for Boeing).
Going forward, Boeing has a very good chance in the competitions coming up. They have since their JSF loss funded a very robust team when it comes to design competency for the next generation fighters. Some of the folks that they have now are among the best. Furthermore, the Industrial base concern alone will allow the Pentagon to keep the design team well funded with work. The Super Hornet and Growler replacement program that has to begin delivering frames by the early to mid 2030's would naturally have a requirement well in excess of 500-600 aircraft. Additionally, the F-15C's, and eventually the F-22's would also need replacing starting the early to mid 2030's. There is plenty of work ahead of them to generate a lot fighter business over and above the money they will be making in supporting the large Eagle, Strike Eagle, Super Hornet and Growler Fleets.
I don't think there would be many feeling sorry for Boeing that must have delivered close to 800-1000 fighter aircraft over the last 25 or so years as a prime or as a leading supplier (majority as a prime). Others have been a lot smarter. Northrop Grumman has throughs scaled composites and other smaller acquisitions developed a very high competency in delivering advanced unmanned vehicles, open mission systems, and rapidly configurable avionics. They have benefited a lot form that. Even a cursory look at the Dollars invested in R&D and the growth in acquisitions spend in unmanned and one can see that it is among the fasted growing sectors in the military aircraft market and they have done remarkably well in that both in securing investments for advanced R&D and through its Global Hawk, payloads business, and other smaller competitions. With the B-21 they have again come to the forefront in securing high R&D as a lead integrator. Even their dollar amount revenue from the JSF matches or exceeds most foreign western OEM's in the prime-integrator capacity so they too have been willing to fund dedicated design teams and have refused to strategically partner up for any of the upcoming fighter or aircraft competitions. They will be competing as a prime for the FA-XX and USAF's F-X competitions and have a brand new clean sheet T-X sitting in California that they refuse to reveal until Boeign reveals its clean sheet design .
Consolidation (and the appearance of monopoly) is result of the last supper and the clear indication sent to the OEM's int he US that they won't be winning the sort of business they were during the cold war. Boeing has bought virtually its entire successful military offensive aircraft and Lockheed benefited a lot from acquiring the F-16. Although the Pentagon is coming out a bit stricter against consolidation I suspect there is another round due before everything settles. The hottest commodity is obviously General Atomics (its still largely private) and the most likely candidate (Needs it, can afford it, and the acquisition fits into their overall strategy) is Boeing.